By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe found Ghislaine Maxwell’s interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former Trump attorney, to be suspicious. Maxwell brought up Donald Trump unprompted and repeatedly referred to him as “President Trump” seemingly knowing what Blanche wanted to hear. McCabe believes Maxwell aimed to deliver information to gain attention and approval from the administration, while Blanche likely sought details regarding Trump’s involvement or lack thereof. The unconventional release of the recording and transcript, without traditional witnesses, further raised concerns, suggesting both Maxwell and the administration achieved their desired outcomes.
Read the original article here
The entire Maxwell interview, as it’s been described, screams “suspicious.” The details paint a picture that’s, frankly, hard to ignore. It’s the kind of situation that practically begs for scrutiny, and the more you dig, the more unsettling it becomes. The fact that an ex-FBI chief might share this sentiment only validates what’s already apparent to many: something’s not right.
One of the glaring red flags is the “I don’t remember” response. When that becomes the go-to answer in an interview, especially one of this magnitude, it’s either a sign of deep-seated memory issues – or a deliberate attempt to avoid revealing something significant. And given the context, it’s hard not to lean towards the latter. The entire process appears, frankly, quite clumsy, as if the participants aren’t even trying to hide their intentions.
The narrative then takes a turn into the realm of quid pro quo. The idea that a close associate of a particular individual could potentially be offered – and receive – favorable treatment in exchange for certain statements is, at the very least, deeply unethical. And the circumstances surrounding Maxwell’s post-interview situation only amplify these concerns. The fact that she ended up in a facility not usually assigned to individuals with her charges and sentence is another clear indication of the special treatment she received.
Then there’s the issue of the interview itself. The fact that Trump’s personal attorney led the questioning, a known associate and likely a supporter, is a crucial element to consider. The claim that the recording device couldn’t fully capture the entire meeting – a claim hard to swallow in an age of vast digital storage – further raises eyebrows. It suggests an attempt to control the narrative, to shape the information that gets out into the world. All of these elements are telling, as they come together to show a possible obstruction of justice and witness tampering at their finest.
The timing of events should also be a factor. The moves that are made in her favor, and the timing of these moves, are telling. This reeks of a calculated strategy, and it’s hard to ignore the implications. Especially considering the fact that she could receive a pardon as a possible reward for her loyalty. It’s a clear example of how the law can be twisted to serve the interests of a few.
The question of Maxwell’s credibility itself is also something to take seriously. She is a convicted child sex trafficker and is known to lie. Her prior convictions and her status as a participant in serious crimes automatically raise serious questions about the reliability of her testimony. How can one take the word of such a person at face value? The way that the interview was handled does not lend any more credibility, either.
One final point of consideration is what this means for the public’s perception of justice. The whole situation is a testament to how easily the system can be manipulated by those with power. It’s easy to see how this could leave people feeling cynical and disillusioned, doubting the very foundations of our legal system.